Talk:Trin-i-tee 5:7

Image

The image of an unrelated band should not be included. Restoring it while reverting valid edits is poor form. Edit warring over that is ignorant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the article. But assuming you did, it can be used for the same reason that this image appears on these pages. Assuming you did not read the article, the groups have been compared to one another which was mentioned in the article and following source given in the article. Lastly, I don't want to come across as combative, but I find it interesting that you would say "Restoring it while reverting valid edits is poor form. Edit warring over that is ignorant.", when you have reverted my constructive edits and you have been blocked multiple times for edit warring. Horizonlove (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I did. It stated that they sounded like the other group, but that is no reason to include the image.

And when's the last block? And for the record, that last block was overturned because the admin was protecting a friend.

Now, why did you revert the edits that were not to the image? If this article was not on my watchlist, I wouldn't have seen it because of the way you edited it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, you still ended up blocked for edit warring, several times (at least 10 times). Anyway, did you review this? It follows the same example. Horizonlove (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

My editing history is not at issue here so stop addressing it. Focus on the content and read WP:NPA where it states that you should discuss the content not the contributor.

The rule you seem to be alluding to is about using a copyrighted image in an article requires a WP:FUR. There's no need to review the image as its use is not a copyrighted image and, any free-use image can be used anywhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy. Just because they may be compared to the group is not a reason to list the. There's no image of Elvis in the article on Cliff Richard, even though he's known as "the British Elvis", not just compared to him; it's his nickname. I can list dozens of instances, we do not link due to comparison as it's confusing.

Now the real reason for me: why did you revert these four edits when your only objection is clearly to this one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There is also a clear WP:BLP violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trin-i-tee_5:7&diff=861885996&oldid=861885887 . Specifically, this violates WP:BLPPRIVACY, and it must be removed or sourced immediately. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: You seem to have missed this discussion. The BLP issue was discussed here. There is no guideance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but as a graphic designer, it's usually bad form to force the reader to work around an image on the left in a L-R language such as English, which is why most graphics and pull quotes are on the right side. It's a layout issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on image placement: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages", per MOS:IMGLOC. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Uhm no, a consensus has not been reached. And off topic, you know very well that you are not supposed to interacting me or following me. Because the only reason you could have got here, was looking at my edit history which you are not supposing to be doing. This will be your final warning before that hounding case gets reopened. You followed me before a while back and this is the second time. You know better. Horizonlove (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? If you seriously think that statement is not in MOS:IMGLOC due to consensus, remove it and state what you wrote in your edit summaries or on my talk page on the talk page of that article.

The reason that the image is on the left in the Destiny's Child article is obvious: if it were on the right, it would conflict with other images on the right.

Where is the discussion that Magnolia677 is to avoid you? I for one would rather have you topic banned from this article, particularly since you claimed ownership ("I added to left, it will stay there "). That would certainly address the issue of you interacting here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And one more thing, in edit summaries, commas are used to separate ideas. I'm sorry that doing so in my previous summary led you to believe that the image was a BLP issue. That was addressed separately. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Don't worry about Magnolia677 or the discussion between him and myself because it has nothing to do with you. In short, we had a history where he kept hounding me from page to page and after I made it clear on my talk page that I wanted nothing to do with him, a ANI discussion was opened. It was made clear at consensus that he would stop following me and that I would remove my talk page banner that said I wanted nothing to do with him. Aside from that, I tried to reach a consensus with you on your talk page but like a child, you kept removing my comment when I asked you to point where on the WP:BLP page does it relate to what you were saying. You deleted my comment on your talk page and then on this talk page, you clearly said "There is also a clear WP:BLP violation", but later said "There is no guideance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, but as a graphic designer, it's usually bad form to force the reader to work around an image on the left in a L-R language such as English, which is why most graphics and pull quotes are on the right side...". Well which is it? It seems to be your opinion of how you think things should go. If you had originally place the image wherever you chosen, I would not question that because you originally put it there and it's ridiculous to move someone else's edits because of your own opinion. Horizonlove (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You made it part of this discussion by discussing it here, and I will speak in favour of Magnolia677 any ANI discussion, so shut up about it already and stop threatening Magnolia677 and me as you have done on several occasions, and now are showing OWNership here. WP:BOOMERANG and all that.

Now, let's talk about who is acting like a child: it's you. A child doesn't read, and that fits you like a glove here. There's a clear edit notice on my talk page that states, in part, "If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page. I likely have the article on my watchlist and will see it eventually." There's a reason for that, and it's common practice with editors who have been around for awhile: discussions on user talk page are generally not noticed by the general public while discussions on main space talk pages are more visible. When you lie and state that there is no "guideance" (I assume you mean "guidance") then what does "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages", in the MOS:IMGLOC section of that guideline mean? If you can't answer that, I will seek a topic ban for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote that there were two issues: 1) a BLP issue—which you addressed by supplying a dodgy source— and 2) an image formatting issue. Which is it? Both. If you would leave your childish ways behind and read what is written above, and address the comments about each separate issue, we might get somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Strikerforce: I see you commented on this subject and the RfC below by removing the image. Would you like to formally comment here as well? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I'll reiterate my edit summary - The image of Destiny's Child doesn't belong here. It's an opinion that the group is "a Christian version" of DC, not supported by any type of verifiable data. Photos within this article should be only of the article's subject or those things which are verifiably related to the subject. Strikerforce^Talk 15:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

:@Walter Görlitz: Off topic again. You need to watch what you say and read carefully. I made no threat towards Magnolia677 however he officially cross-over to WP:HOUNDING when he once again singled me out, watched my contributions, and then participated in this discussion by siding with you and making a vote. As you said "I will speak in favour of Magnolia677 any ANI discussion" and you can do so, however you might find yourself blocked for 12th time. When I addressed Magnolia677 in the earlier comment, I was speaking directly to him and not you (Walter Görlitz). So to say "so shut up about it already and stop threatening Magnolia677" when you have no clue what you're talking about is very silly and ignorant. I have no problem with another user (in this case User:Strikerforce) siding and agreeing with you. That's very fine but don't twist my words by calling it a "threat", which is something you have been blocked for. Horizonlove (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I watch what I read and write very carefully. You did threaten Magnolia677: "This will be your final warning before that hounding case gets reopened". Unless you live in a world where the threat of opening an ANI case is "reopened", is not actually a threat, it's a threat. And since Magnolia677 was interacting with me and not you you'd have no case. I'm sore that you feel that I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I did ask you to link to the previous ANI case where this existed and you were unwilling or possibly unable to. I have never been blocked for anything that you have discussed, but you've been generally ignorant and uncooperative during this entire discussion, so I'm not surprised by your intentional misdirection once again.

You need to be careful and not assume. Are you sure this article isn't on Magnolia677's watch list?

As for siding with "me", have you read WP:BATTLEGROUND? This isn't about taking my side or your side, it's about educating you about how Wikiedia works. I know I'm learning things.

Finally, since you responded without discussing what IMGLOC states—and that is the crux of the matter on the second image—I'm considering the topic ban on the weekend that I mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Karst commented about this here. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: "Are you sure this article isn't on Magnolia677's watch list?" I'm 100% positive because he has no prior history editing this page or any article connected to this page (ex. album's page, discography, etc). He (Magnolia677) only found this page because he watches my "contributions/edits" as he has in the past. Now if you condone hounding users, feel free to side with him. But following a user from page to page to the point where they requested that you stay away from them and then still continues that behavior to where you eventually decide participate in a discussion and side against the user you are following is unacceptable behavior. In short, I jumped off topic to address Magnolia677 and that would have ended immediately until you (Walter Görlitz) kept referencing him by saying "You made it part of this discussion by discussing it here". Once again, I have no problem with you being right or allowing another user to comment. The only thing is Magnolia677 should not have commented here. Horizonlove (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The archived ANI discussion closed as, "nothing more to do here as Horizonlove has decided to retire". So you're either confused or lying when you wrote that there was an agreement that Magnolia677 was "not supposed to interacting me or following me". I asked you to link to the discussion, and there is none about that. It's troubling that Magnolia677 came out of self-imposed retirement, and if the addition of unsourced content continues, I would encourage you to open a new ANI discussion to address the situation. However, there is no agreement as you claimed so you can drop that point. His discussion here is not in violation of that ANI discussion as far as I can see.

As for chances to drop things, do you care to save me some time in opening a topic ban discussion at ANI and actually comment on what IMGLOC states and how it applies here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: That is not the ANI discussion I was referring to and Magnolia677 knows that. This is the [ANI discussion I'm referring too] since you're choosing to jump off topic. The consensus in short was that I would reluctantly remove my talk page banner stating that I strongly preferred to him to stay away and one of the admins stated "It's clear Magnolia677 is aware of the request so any attempt to claim they weren't would spectacularly fail..... If Magnolia677 does repeatedly ignore the request and it's felt them doing so isn't resonable, this can be brought to ANI and Magnolia677 sanctioned if it's felt it's needed. I mean sure it would be nice if Magnolia677 did specifically agree to honour it..." Horizonlove (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

At Foxy Brown (rapper), I started editing the article six months before Horizonlove. Then, Horizonlove somehow "found me" there, took ownership, then issued this edit summary: "Do not revert that. That part did not happen. And you are NOT supposed to interact with me." Perhaps HL plans to issue "no contact" edicts across the project to anyone who disagrees with their sometimes sloppy and unsourced edits. Methinks HL should ponder the law of the instrument, and quit being such an Opuntia. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That sort of statement looks familiar. The edit history here shows that sort of behaviour from Horizonlove

@Horizonlove: I think you mean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#User:Horizonlove The summary makes no mention of avoiding each other:

As Horizonlove has removed the offending message, there is nothing more to do here. Noting that this all arose over a handful of legitimate warnings, IMO HL needs to grow a thicker skin if he intends to continue editing. Magnolia677 should also consider choosing his battles with more discretion. A thicker skin is also advised. However, it is unseemly to use a "Scarlet letter" approach to asking an editor to stay off your talk page, especially since there was NO other type of request made. In the future, if you want someone to leave you alone, HL, just tell them.

Have you grown that thicker skin as was suggested?

@Horizonlove: You seem to be avoiding the direct questions asked of you here. What does IMGLOC state and how it applies here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: First off, you did not edit the article, you made reverts, which are two different things. Second, I didn't follow you there. I was editing the Dawn Robinson article, which mentioned that she was in music group "The Firm"; a group consisting of Nas, Foxy Brown, and few other rappers/singers. Somebody stated that their album went gold/platinum which is not true. Once I removed that false part from the article, I checked the individual members' profiles of that group to make sure that no one added that false information to their profile or discography pages which someone did on the Foxy Brown discography page. I removed it with this edit and later saw that someone added it the Foxy Brown article. I removed the false information but Magnolia677 "conveniently" reverted it. I reverted his revision because it was false information. So while it is possible that you had the Foxy Brown page on your watchlist, I seriously doubt that your revision on my edits were sincere. And I'm sure once you saw that I edited the page, you immediately jumped at the chance to revert my edit before checking to see why I removed false content. But regardless, you definitely can't explain how you got here. Horizonlove (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: WP:3RR states

A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

Based on this description, do you understand that any edit that changes existing content is a revert? Oh, never mind. You're not going to answer this one either. I'll raise this in the ANI and my argument will be based on WP:COMPETENCE. You shouldn't be editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I answered many of your questions. I'm not repeating myself anymore. And honestly, I don't care about your opinion of Magnolia677, myself, or his hounding behavior towards me. It's irrelevant to me as you have been blocked many times yourself, one time for making threats towards another user, so I don't expect you understand why I addressed him and warned him to stop following me. Frankly, I'm done commenting here because this page is not place for it. I only jumped off topic one time to address and you continued to pry and the off topic discussion continued. Horizonlove (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And you're welcome to go to ANI board if that's your choice. I was definitely going there myself to re-present the case of Magnolia677 because he cross-over in hounding when he participated in this discussion and vote. Now if you want to open a ANI case against me, that's fine. I have nothing to hide so don't surprise if doesn't go in your favor. Horizonlove (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: I do not see that answered my question about IMGLOC, at least not in this discussion. The closest is when you asked me to clarify a compound edit summary and my clarification in the talk discussion here. I am willing to admit I was wrong, but please show me a diff of where you discussed it. I'd even be happy with a copy-and-paste in quotes as you're fond of doing. In lieu of either of those, please reiterate the point you made, on the record in this discussion. In case you missed my question, it followed your wrote, "Uhm no, a consensus has not been reached". This was after Magnolia677 quoted "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages" and linked to MOS:IMGLOC. The consensus is at the manual of style. I was incredulous that you said that there was no consensus about placing images on the right. Do you understand that the MoS is clear and community consensus exists about that one issue? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Destiny's Child image inclusion

There is a consensus to remove File:Destiny's Child Tour (cropped).jpg from the article per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. This has been done.

Cunard (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is insufficient association between Trin-i-tee 5:7 and Destiny's Child, and sufficient visual similarity between the bands, that including an image of the latter is confusing at first glance, and so should therefore be removed from the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The image has little relevance, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Just stating "A" is similar to "B" is sufficient. No need for a photo. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Magnolia677. Strikerforce^Talk 18:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rkellytrappedinthecloset2007.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)